A Consideration of Homosexuality
and Marriage

Perhaps the most striking thing about the idea of gay marriage
is that it has gained prominence in so short a time. Homosexual
desire and sexual expression are not new, of course, and are evident
in every culture. Homosexual couples are acknowledged in ancient
historical documents - nothing new here either. But the claim
that committed gay couples should be viewed in exactly the same
way as heterosexuals who marry has not been made before. Until
now, no one has argued that gay and straight couples are indistinguishable
with regard to: ordinary family life; 'two becoming one;' child
raising opportunities and responsibilities; the passing on of
foundations, values, and stability to future generations.

This contention is unknown in cultures that have Judeo-Christian
roots, but also in Asia, Africa, India, the lands of Islam, among
pre-modern tribal cultures and everywhere else. Homosexuals have
been received with different degrees of acceptance in different
places and times, but gay marriage has never before been contemplated,
let alone advocated. Why not and why now?

Most proponents will argue that only in recent times has science
allowed us to see homosexuality as normal. But hard science has
made very little contribution in this regard. For instance, despite
numerous studies using the most up to date technology no consensus
about the causes of homosexuality has been established.

Social scientists have certainly changed the way they regard
homosexuality. But this is not because of new information (the
feelings and life experiences of homosexuals) that was unavailable
until recently. The interior experience of sexual awakening is
not different now than it has been throughout human history. The
difficulties that go with discovering oneself to be different
are not new. What has changed is the perspective from which human
experience is evaluated.

Contemporary social scientists have embraced a philosophical
conviction that leads them to affirm the validity of homosexual
couples. The reigning world view is that right and wrong, natural
and unnatural, moral and immoral are all arbitrary, socially-constructed
categories. Given this perspective, all experience is equally
valid and all life choices are equally normal.

If this is so, we must deny that nature, tradition, accumulated
wisdom, the gods, or God speak clearly. There can be no voice
outside ourselves to guide us with the powerful forces of sexuality,
love, and the hope for family. Every person is left to make his
or her own way in a journey of self discovery.

This line of thinking has particular implications for Christians.
Those who would welcome gay marriage in the church usually make
the following argument: a) Biblical authors (like Paul) did not
know that, for some folks, homosexual orientation is normal, God-given
and positive. b) When he spoke against homosexual behavior Paul
was assuming straight people were acting "contrary to nature"
(Romans 1:26-27) for some perverse thrill or that gay sex was
linked to idolatry. c) Since positive homosexuality has only recently
been discovered by 'science' we should do our best to figure out
what the writers of the New Testament would have said if modem
information had been available to them.

But why has the possibility of loving, stable homosexual couples
and families remained hidden so long? Why did God wait until the
end of the twentieth century to make happy marriages available
to his gay children? Why didn't Paul, or anyone else in the early
church, listen to the stories of homosexual converts who could
have told him they were being true to themselves in -their sexual
pairings? Moving beyond Christian-influenced culture, why has
no sage or prophet or moral teacher in any place (none of the
world religions, nor remote tribal religions) seen what Gene Robinson
(recently installed Episcopal bishop) sees so clearly - that gay
and straight relationships are exactly the same?

One of the darkest and most tragic periods in the history of
the people of God is described in the Old Testament book, Judges.
The rebellion of this period in history is summarized in a phrase
at the end of the book - "everyone did what was right in
his own eyes."

The idea of gay marriage requires the most radical commitment
to doing what is right in your own eyes. It has not been considered
until recently because every previous generation knew that healthy
sexual expression and the establishing of families were too important
to attempt without the guidance of those who had gone before.
Believers who know that God loves us enough to communicate with
us found it impossible to conceive that He neglected for so long
to mention his approval of homosexual marriages.

In Goethe's poem the sorcerer's apprentice imagined he could
control powerful and mysterious forces without guidance from his
master. The results were terrible. So was the experience of Israel
during the time of the Judges. It is not hard to predict the outcome
of the current determination to "do what is right in our
own eyes."

In the first century, as now, unrighteous sexual behavior was
commonplace (for all kinds of people). The gospel message of forgiveness
and "newness of life" was preached and believed; broken
lives were redeemed. Christian communities were called to be places
of mutual ministry and acceptance. What was not contemplated among
Christians until recent years is that truth will be discovered
by listening to one's own desires and championing what I discover
in myself rather than by listening to the God who speaks through
his Word.

What are some implications for ministry flow from these observations?
Consider:

1. The world view that advocates gay marriage is deeply ingrained
(especially among those under thirty-five). From this perspective,
the unwillingness of traditional Christians to embrace a wide
range of lifestyles is viewed as arrogance and aggression. It
is difficult enough to speak of the implications of the gospel
when differing voices can at least make themselves understood.
There is a great chasm between contemporary and traditional perspectives.
It requires more effort and, perhaps, more love to communicate
across chasms. How can we move forward?

2. Jesus taught a narrow and inflexible sexual ethic (see Matt.
5:27-32). Yet no one was more accepting of those with sexual brokenness
(John 4: 13-26). He defended traditional marriage in the strongest
terms and welcomed those whose relationships directly challenged
what he taught. How can we represent Jesus faithfully in our time
and place?

3. The percentage of our contemporaries who live in legally
established families grows smaller every day. Some social benefits
and obligations, such as bereavement leave, the right to hospital
visitation, and eligibility for health care have been attached
by custom to legal marriage. There is nothing in scripture or
established tradition that requires such attachment. It is probably
wise to encourage our law makers to disconnect arbitrary benefits
that are joined to the institution of marriage. The alternatives
are worse: a) deny the large and growing number of unmarried folks
reasonable access to social benefits or b) strengthen the arguments
of those who want to redefine marriage.

Finally, consider the analogy between winsome gay couples and
winsome adulterers.
It is important to appreciate gay couples who are deeply committed
to each other, treat their neighbors well, contribute to their
communities and intend no harm to anyone. In some cases, the quality
of their lives - their sacrificial love, sweetness of temperament,
easy laughter - put struggling married folks to shame.

Adultery can be lovely, too. A hard and pain-filled marriage,
in which divorce is not an option, is usually the backdrop to
these stories. "There has been no tenderness or real communication
between us for years. Her anger (his drinking) and stifling manipulation
have made life a living hell. Every effort to bring about change
has failed..."

This is followed by the story of a tender and caring lover
with whom connection is deep and real. Adultery can also include
lasting commitment, sacrificial love, easy laughter. It can bring
sunshine and enthusiasm for life that didn't exist before.

What do we make of these things? A few thoughts:

1. I understand both circumstances. Loneliness is painful and
the opportunity to overcome it is hard to resist. A holier-than-thou
attitude is dishonest. There but for the grace of God go I.

2. A relationship can be winsome and understandable and still
be wrong. In a fallen world Christians are often required to trust
God in hard circumstances ("my grace is sufficient for you")
rather than choose a sinful way out.

3. The social approval of homosexual relationships or adultery
- however attractive they appear - is not healthy for society
in the long run. The idea that either should be sanctioned in
law (much less blessed among Christians) is a dangerous legacy
to leave the next generation.